Ul 


U 


'/£      ^-^^^- 


£rr<yvt~4h^Q 


/Qua 


/ 


/Ft 


'i> 


/-.  ■'■ 


y 


% 


«*** 


a  tint  mtotogkm  ft 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


% 


% 


Presented   by  cjV\&    C\vATnOr 


Division 
Section  ■■ 


fiO.fiO. 


Digitize^  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  Z(#r^ith>runding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/decreesofgoddiscOOseno 


J 


•    lie  Pr-  sbyterjnn  Herald. 
SOW  SOME  FOLKS  CAff  TALK! 
If  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  a  pic 
^ned  Astley,    in  the   Nashville  and   Louisville 
Chns(l,,n  Advocate,  of  July  19th,  and  then  read 
the  following,  he   wilj  understand    what  is  meant 
by  the  above  caption.     After  the  Rev.  J.  FrfpV 
lm  Walsh  became   the  pastor   in  charge   of  the 
Methodist  church  at  Paducah,  Kentucky,  for  the" 
present  year,  he,  on  several  occasions,  alluded  to 
!!  certain  doctrines  held  by  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  terms   not  to  be   misunderstood,  and   calcula-"1 
ted  to  excite  surprise,  as  well  as  sorrow,  that  any 
maa  professing-  to  be  an  ambassador  of  Christ, 

I  exhibit  so  inveterate  hostility  to  doctr 
held  by  many  eminent  christians  in  all  ages.  On 
one  occasion,  some  time  last  spring,  hc°spoke  of 
everlasting  purposes  as  "everlasting  nonsense." 
In  another  of  his  violent  attacks  upon  the  doc- 
trine  of  foreordination,  which  Mr.  Astley  is  pleas- 
ed to  call  fatalism,  li£  remarked  that  to  talk  of 
eternal  purposes,  would,  or  was  fit  to,  "cause  a 
sneer  in  hell." 

Now,  when  Mr.  Walsh  came  to  our  town,  the 
different  denominations  were  at  peace  with  each 
other;  and  members  of  one  church,  frequently 
attended  worship  at  the  house  of  another.  Aftep 
he  had  "opened  his"  mouth,  and  sent  forth  hot 
volleys  of  sarcasm  and  ridicule  against  what  he 
called^Calvinism,  the  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian' 
Church,  thinking  that  the  members  of  his  charge* 
ought  to-be  always  ready  to  give,  to  every  man 
that  asketh,  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  was  in 
them,  preached  three  sermons,  or  rather  a  ser- 
mon in  three  parts,  on  the  decrees  of  God.  Id 
this  discourse,  the  pastor,  (Rev.  Mr.  Senour,) 
quoted  from  the  Articles  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  the  Confession  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church,  the  Methodist  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, from  Wesley,  and  perhaps  others,  to 
prove  that  theJPresbvteiian  Church  was  not  alto- 
gether singular,  with  regard  to  all  the  points  held 
by  that  church,  concerning  decrees,  electiofl?: 
and  reprobation.  Another  object,  at  which  he 
aimed,  in  quoting  the  Discipline,  was  to  show 
that  there  was  either  inconsistency  in  the  Discip- 
line itself,  or  between  it  and  some  Methodist 
preachers.  If  he  "misread"  the  Discipline  he 
must  have  dune  so   through  mUfnl-oa  fV-r  he 


lie  had  the  quotation,  in  the  same  words  that  are 
used  in  the  Discipline,  written  down  in  his  manu- 
script, and  before1  his  eyes  while,  he  was  preach- 
The  deduction  drawn  from  the  quotation 
is  in  the  printed  sermon,  and  certainly  no  false 
quotation  would  help  the  argument,  as  all  who 
read  and  understand  may  see. 

Mr.  Sen  our  did  not  speak  disrespectfully  of 
Methodist  preachers,  unless  the  following  was  dis- 
respe.Tul.  Speaking  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
he  said:  "In  the  very  Book  of  Discipline  that  is 
carried,  at  least  in  the  pocket,  if  not  always  in 
head,  of  every  Methodist  circuit  rider."  The 
word  "little,"  before  Methodist  circuit  rider,  has 
been  interpolated  by  way  of  improvement. 
The  only  other  passage  against  which  a  Metho- 
dist preacher  could  make  any  special  ftompJ 
on  the  score  of  disrespect,  contained  an  all'u 
to  the  aiorementioned  happy  expression,  "a  sneer 
in  hell." 

Mr.  Walsh    animadverted  very  roughly  upon 
Mr.    Senour's  alleged   iniquities    concerning   the 
quotations,   and     said  some    v.it    hard    things, 
charging  him  with  wilful  misrepresntation,   and 
saying   ;hat  lie  could   no  longer   consider  him  a 
gentleman.     This  is  the  kind  of  "sharp  rebuke" 
which  Mr,    Asley  says  that  Mr.  Walsh    adminis- 
tered to  the  "Rev.  gentleman."     With  what  kind 
of  feeling  Mr.  Walsh  "administered"  this  '^karp 
rebuke"  can  be  better  judged  by  his    words  and 
manner  than    by    Mr.  Astley's  assertion.     ''Out 
of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  m,uth  speak- 
eth."     Some  people  thought  that  Mr.  Walsh  was 
very  angry;   and  that  Mr..Senour's  conduct,  bad 
as  it  was,  bar!  bees  greatly  aggravated  in  the  re- 
port.    I  pa},  "bad  as  if,  was."     For  Mr.  Senour 
to  presume  to  defend  his  own  doctrine  before  his 
own  church,  and    in  the  same  town    in    which   it 
had  been  abused,   and  (worse  still)  in  which  Mr. 
W.  lived,  and  (worst  of  all)  against  Mr.  W.  him- 
self,   was    too  bad.     And  then,   that    he    should 
summon  to  his  aid  the  "very  book  of  discipline," 
"i  this    mjy  work,    was  not  to  be  endured.     M<> 
must  receive    a  '-sharp  rebuke,"  and   be  digged 
with  "gross  misrepresentation,"  and  be  denounc- 
ed as  no  gentleman.  I 


Some  of  Mr.  Senour's  brethren  thought  it 
might  be  well  to  publish  the  sermons  which  had 
produced  such  a  "shaking  among  the  dry  bones," 
that  people  might  see  for  themselves  the  awful 
things  contained  in  them,  and,  also,  get  some 
correct  information,  iffhev  wished  it,  concerning; 
the  "horrible  doctrine"  so  often  held  up  toterrify 
"the  natives.  the  idea  that  "learned  profes- 
sionrl  dignity  was  called  to  assist  in  the  mighty 
undertaking,  may  perhaps  be  considered  a 
compliment  to  the  si  rnum  ;  but  among  Mr.  Sen- 
our's brethren,  would  hardly  be  considered  a 
compliment  to  him.  Having  studied  theology  for 
some'  years  before  tliey"  undertake,  to  in.-trnct  o1h- 

ers  in  the  "myskries  of  godliness,"  Pr< 

•   •  ,  '  n       Vi       ■      l     i        inii  1 

ministers  are  generally  able,  single-handed,  to  de- 

1  their  doctrine,  at,  [east  ajfaTustmen  of  ordin- 

caliber*.  The   in  an    is   not  to  be  found,   who 
.«■■ 
v  wWiruth,  that  he    assisted  Mr:  Sencmy 

ii     iTh    composition  <>f  a    single   sentence,  by    the 

.  >iion  of  a  single  thought,  or   by    Mie    scl  i 

tion  of  a  *ingle  quotation,  or  by  recommending  to 

ftfi     nlm;    ar.y  audi-; 

B  ,,|A>-.:Ievisrhildb.h  M  ri- 

.i  .  


to  tire  review"  "  tn-b^eb1- 

ple  here,  a  perfect  dcmoiiduT  of    tile    getMi 
and  his  sermons.'' that  is  nil  a  pWSiTHg  tTr.  :mi  -x- 
l&tfy  only  in  the  happy  imagination   of  Mr. 

The  -jvntlemnn  himself  ts  alive  and  in  good 
herdth   and  spirit.;  and  so'  far  'tis  p^Ve    who  do 

media.. 
liisn  .  -.,.  imp,ir,.l.   I  road 

,-1/er'c  once,  of  a  lio'r  induced  Ed 


y 


y  Oemc  i    wo 

wliile   fe« 
which  made  the  sha\  i 

This  is  the  happy  s'  r.  Astley,  who  «u<j 

Methodism  as  i  osperous  all  around 

him,  and  Presbytcrianisai  in  a  libpeless  condition. 
The  sermons  are  still  extant  and  can  speak 
for  themselves.  The  thing  whioli  the  I 
rians  here  desire,  with  reference  to  this  subject, 
is,  that  as  many  people  as  possible  may  read  both 
pamphlets  that  have  been  written  on  both  sides 
of  this  controversy,  in  the  order  in  whi<  h  they 
were  published.  They  are  anxious  that  people 
may  read  and  think,  and  decide  for  themselves 
whether  Mr.  Senour's  sermons  have  been,  demol- 
ished or  not.  They  care  nothing  about  puffing 
their  preacher;  he  does  not  need  puffing-.  Let 
those  who  hear  him  preach,  and  those   who  read 

his  pamphlets  judge  oHiie  performances. 

But  this  article  is  already  too  long.  There  are 
other  absurdities  in  Mr.  Astley  s  production,  that 
might  be  noticed,  if  my  time  and  your  patience 
would  allow.  The  last  thing  which  I  have  to  say 
is  this.  How  Mr.  Astley  could  say  that  Mr.  S.'s 
sermons  were  placed  any  where  "for  sale  on 
commission;  and  how  he  could  write  all  that  par- 
agraph in  which  lie  alludes  to  an  article  which  ap- 
peared in  the  Paducah  Journal,  signed  Protest- 
ant; and  how  he  could  say  that  "for  years  past 
Presbyterians  have  tried  to  gain  the  ascendency 
in  this  place;" — how  he  could  say  these  things 
and  several  others  which  he  ias  said,  and  all  the 
while  think  he  was  telling  tht  truth,  is  incompre- 
hensible to  my  mind,  iinless  he  had  that  funny 
pair  of  spectacles  on.  H. 


THE   DECREES   OF    GOD; 


A  JHSCOl.'RSK, 


r.v 


FAUNTLEROY    SENOTJR, 


PASTOR  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH, 


P  A  1)  U  U  A  II ,      K  Y 


kFUBLI3HED    BY    REQUEST. 


CITY1     OF     T  A  D  L  C  A  H  . 

printed    at    the    JOunsATi    orriCK. 

1852, 


The  Sermon  in  the  following  pages  was  preached  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  at  Paducah,  in  three  parts,  in  May, 
1852  ;  and  is  offered  to  the  public  at  the  request  of  a  number 
of  friends,  and  net  because  the  Author  flatters  himself  ihat 
any  new  light  is  shed  upon  a  subject  that  lias  occupied  the 
minds  and  employed  the  pens  of  great  and  good  men. 


THE    DECREES    OF    GOD. 


•'Bo  ready  always  to  give  an  answer  to  every  man  that  n?koth  yoa  a  reason  of  the  hopo 
that  is  in  you,  with  meekness  and  fear." — [1  Peter,  ch.  iii,  v.  xv. 

This  passage  of  scripture  has  not  been  selected  so  much  for  the  purpose 
of  confining  my  remarks  to  the  exact  spirit  of  the  passage,  as  for  another 
purpose.  Contrary  to  my  custom,  it  will  be  used  as  a  motto  in  dis- 
cussing an  important  and  greatly  controverted  subject,  viz  :  ••  The  Decrees 
of  God." 

This  doctrine,  as  held  by  Presbyterians,  has  had,  and  still  has,  many 
bitter  opponents,  who,  in  the  heat  of  debate,  have  accused  us  of  heresy,  and 
of  "  teaching  the  doctrines  of  devils."  In  opposition,  however,  to  all  rail- 
ing and  calumny,  true  Presbyterians  are  firm  believers  in  the  doctrine  of 
divine  decrees,  and  it  is  hoped  that  they  will  remain  steadfast  in  the  faith 
of  their  fathers,  until  the  Lord  changes  the  Bible.  In  giving  reasons  for 
our  faith,  instead  of  giving  railing  for  railing — as  might  easily  be  done — 
instead  of  using  personalities  and  abusive  language,  I  design,  God  helping 
me,  dispassionately  to  discuss  the  subject  proposed,  with  the  spirit  of  chris- 
tian kindness  and  courtesy  ;  in  other  words,  "  I  will  give  an  answer  to 
every  man  that  asketh  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  me,  with  meekness 
and  fear,"  i.  e.  with  the  fear  of  God,  but  not  of  man,  before  me. 

I  am  now  to  vindicate  the  Decrees  of  God,  and  show  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  on  this  subject,  is  consonant  with  reason  and 
revelation.  For  the  sake  of  order,  I  will  speak,  first,  of  God's  General 
Decree  ;  secondly,  of  the  Decree  of  Election  ;  thirdly,  of  the  Decree  of 
Reprobation  ;  and,  fourthly,  will  notice  some  of  the  objections  commonly 
urged  against  this  doctrine. ' 

1.  We  are  to  consider,  first,  the  General  Decree  of  God.  "  What  are 
the  decrees  of  God  V  This  question,  you  will  readily  perceive,  is  the 
twelfth  one  of  our  Larger  Catechism,  and  this  is  the  answer :  "  God's  de- 
crees are  the  wise,  free,  and  holy  acts  of  the  counsel  of  his  will,  whereby, 
from  all  eternity,  he  hath,  for  his  own  glory,  unchangably  fore-ordained 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass  in  time,  especially  concerning  angels  and  men." 
Here  it  is  necessary  to  remark  that  to  decree,  to  purpose,  to  fore-ordain, 
to  predestinate,  are  so  nearly  the  same  in  meaning  that  they  will  be  used 
as  synonymous  terms. 

Now  for  the  proof  that  "  God  has  from  eternity  fore-ordained  what- 
soever comes  to  pass." 

First — It  may  be  argued  from  the  intelligence  of  God.  No  man  can 
doubt  that  God  is  an  intelligent  being,  for  this  attribute  of  his  character 
is  fully  manifested  in  his  word  and  works.  Consider  what  this  means. 
"  An  intelligent  being  is  one  who  knows  and  judges,  who  purposes  ends 
and  devises  means,  who  acts  from  design,  conceives  a  plan,  and  then  pro- 
ceeds to  execute  it."  Then,  if  God  is  an  intelligent  being  and  the  creator 
of  all  things,  as  he  is  represented  in  his  word  to  be,  nothing  ever  came 
into  existence  without  his  knowledge  and  efficient  or  permissive  purpose, 
or  his  direct  or  indirect  agency.  If  God  is  an  intelligent  being,  before  he 
created  the  universe  he  must  have  formed  some  plan  or  purpose  to  create. 


Why,  even  among  men,  he  who  acts  without  a  fixed  plan  or  purpose,  is 
suspected  of  idiocy.  No  man  of  intelligence  acts  without  a  purpose.  If  he 
designs  building  a  house,  the  intelligent  man  forms  a  plan  and  has  a  pur- 
pose before  he  commences  the  work.  The  intelligent  husbandman  nevei  acts 
without  a  plan.  Before  cultivating  his  fields,  he  forms  his  plans*  and  then 
follows  his  purposes,  or  plans  that  he  may  accomplish  them.  So  God  being 
infinite  in  intelligence,  never  acts  without  first  forming  a  purpose  to  act. 
For  example — before  God  created  the  world  he  formed  a  purpose  to  create, 
and  being  infinite  in  power,  he  executed  that  purpose.  Before  the  crea- 
tion of  man,  God  willed  or  purposed  to  create  him,  endowed  with  certain 
faculties — who,  when  placed  under  certain  circumstances,  would  act  in  a 
given  way  ;  hence  the  purpose  of  God  to  create  man,  extended  not  only 
to  the  body  but  to  the  mind  ;  so  that  it  may  be  said  in  truth,  that  the  de- 
cree or  purpose  of  God  extended  to  the  actions  of  men,  moral  as  well  as 
physical.  Now,  then,  if  God  is  the  creator  of  all  things  in  the  material 
or  the  immaterial  universe,  as  an  intelligent  being  he  must,  before  creating, 
have  formed  some  plan,  and  that  plan  or  purpose  was  his  decree — and  this 
is  what  is  meant  when  we  say  that  "  God  has  decreed  or  fore-ordained 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  When  we  speak  of  God's  "  fore-ordaining," 
we  mean  nothing  "  mysterious  or  profound,  but  merely  that,  before  act- 
ing, God  willed  to  act ;  that  his  operations,  ad  extka,  were  not  the  effects 
of  necessity,  but  of  counsel  and  design."  I  call  attention  to  this  point — 
it  is  not  asserted  that  God  fore-ordained  or  pre-determined  efficiently  to 
produce  "whatsoever  comes  to  pass  in  time."  For  example — God  did 
not  efficiently  fore-ordain  the  fall  of  our  first  parents,  and  all  the  wicked- 
ness that  has,  as  a  consequence,  since  existed.  But  God  created  them, 
placed  them  in  certain  circumstances,  in  which  circumstances  they  were 
permitted  to  fall.  So  that  while  the  sin  of  the  fall  was  their  own,  God 
willed  to  permit,  but  not  to  cause  it ;  and  thus  God  cannot  be  charged 
with  being  the  author  of  sin. 

Second — That  "  God  has  fore-ordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  mav 
be  argued  from  his  fore-knowledge.  That  God  is  "  infinite  in  knowledge," 
most  christians  readily  admit.  Then,  from  all  eternity  God  foreknew 
every  event  that  has  taken  place,  or  may  take  place  in  time  ;  but  how  was 
it  possible  to  know,  with  unerring  certainty,  that  any  event  would  occur, 
unless  that  event  was  purposed,  fore-ordained,  and  placed  beyond  any 
contingency?  To  this  argument,  which  never  has  been  answered,  I 
call  particular  attention.  If  God  fore-knew  from  all  eternity  every  event 
that  has  occurred,  or  may  occur  in  time,  then  every  event  of  time  must 
have  been  fore-ordained  ;  lor  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  God  could  have 
fore-known  the  existence  of  any  event,  if  the  certainty  of  its  future  exist- 
ence was  not  fixed  or  purposed  in  the  mind  of  God.  For  example — God 
knew  from  eternity  that  our  earth  was  to  have  an  existence,  but  how  could 
lie  have  known  infallibly  that  the  earth  would  be  created,  unless  it  was 
definitely  settled  that  it  should  bo  created?  If  there  was  any  uncertainty 
about  the  event,  if  it  was  not  decreed,  then  God  could  not  have  known  its 
future  existence  with  unerring  certainty.  God  fore-knew  the  existence  of 
man — but  if  he  fore-knew  with  certainty  his  existence,  was  it  not  definitely 
settled  that  he  was  to  exist,  long  before  his  existence  ?  If  so,  then  man's 
existence  was  fore-ordained.  Then,  since  God  infallibly  fore-knew  from 
eternity  every  event  that  has  taken  place,  or  will  take  place  in  time,  then 
every  event  that  has  existed  or  that  may  exist,  was  from  eternity  unchang- 
ably  fore-ordained.  But  we  are  not  left  to  the  dictates  of  reason  alone  on 
this  subject.     In  the  Word  of  God  we  are  taught  that   many  events  were 


I 

not  only  fore-known  or  fore-ordained,  but  actually  predicted,  and  in  some 
instances  even  hundreds  of  years  before  the  fulfillment  of  (lie  prediction. 
For  example — it  was  predicted  that  Nineveh,  the  capital  of  the  Assyrian 
empire,  defended  as  it  was  by  a  surrounding  wall  sixty  miles  in  circum- 
ference and  one  hundred  feet  high,  should  be  destroyed.  It  was  distinctly 
foretold  by  the  Lord  through  his  prophet  Nahum,  that  Nineveh  should  be 
destroyed,  while  its  inhabitants  were  drunk,  and  that  too  by  the  swoiid, 
by  water  and  by  fire.  Josephus  informs  us  that  all  the  things  that  the 
prophet  predicted  came  to  pass  one  hundred  and  fifteen  years  after  the 
prediction.  Then,  as  the  destruction  of  Nineveh  was  (ore-known  to  God 
and  fore-told  through  his  prophet,  it  is  clear  ihat  it  was  foreordained  or 
predestinated.  If  the  event  was  not  fixed,  definitely  settled,  then  it  might 
not  have  taken  place  according  to  the  prediction,  and  in  that  event  the 
prophecy  would  have  been  false.  Thus  every  prophecy  in  the  Bible  proves 
clearly  that  the  events  predicted  or  fore-known  were  also  fore-ordained — 
for  if  the  fulfillment  of  prophecies  was  not  placed  beyond  uncertainty, 
then  they  may  never  have  been  fulfilled,  and  this  would  prove  that  God  was 
a  false  prophet.  Take  the  position,  then,  that  all  the  predictions  of  the 
Bible  were  settled,  and  were  certainly  to  occur  as  predicted,  then  you 
admit  fore-ordination  or  predestination.  If  you  say  they  might  not  have 
occurred  as  predicted,  then  you  make  God  a  false  prophet.  Here,  again, 
as  an  answer  to  this  argument,  we  are  told  that  if  God  fore-ordains  every 
event  he  must  fore-ordain  sinful  actions.  If  the  destruction  of  Nineveh 
was  fore-ordained,  in  part  bv  the  sword,  cruelty  must  have  been  fore- 
ordained; for  it  was  practiced  in  the  destruction  of  that  city.  Not  so  ; 
just  so  far  as  the  Medes  and  Babylonians  were  sinful,  just  so  far  were  they 
its  authors,  and  God  purposed  or  decreed  to  permit  them  to  act  as  they 
did,  which  act  he  had  power  to  prevent,  but  not  wishing  to  interfere  with 
their  free  agency,  he  determined  to  permit  it  and  over-rule  it  for  his  own 
glory.  But  I  am  anticipating  a  point  that  is  to  be  more  fully  discussed  in 
another  part  of  this  subject.  There  is  but  one  possible  way  of  evading 
the  argument  founded  upon  the  fore-knowledge  of  God.  That  way  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Dr.  Adam  Clark  in  his  Commentary  ;  where,  in  my 
opinion,  he  denies  the  fore-knowledge  of  God.  He  says  there  are  some 
things  which  God  does  not  *  choose  ''  to  know,  (as  if  he  must  not  first 
know  them,  before  he  can  determine  that  he  will  not  know  them.)  Thus 
this  learned  Commentator,  rather  than  admit  that  God  has  fore-ordained 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  is  forced  to  take  refuge  in  a  self  destructive 
argument,  and  to  deny  the  infinite  fore-knowledge  of  God  ;  for,  according 
to  this  argument,  there  are  certain  things  of  which  God  is  ignorant. 
These  arguments  are  sufficient  to  establish  the  proposition  '•  that  God  has 
decreed  whatsoever  conies  to  pass." 

ELECTION. 

IT.  Your  attention  will  be  directed,  in  the  second  place,  to  the  Decree 
of  Election,  or  the  special  decree  of  God  concerning  men,  which  is  thus 
expressed  in  the  answer  to  the  13th  question  of  the  Larger  Catechism  : 
"  God,  by  an  eternal  and  immutable  decree,  hath  chosen  some  men  to 
eternal  life."  Not  all  of  our  Armenian  brethren  will  deny  that  God  has  a 
chosen  or  elect  people,  but  say  they  are  elected  in  time.  Here  we  join 
issue  with  them,  and  say  that  they  were  elected  from  eternity.  For  the 
proof  of  our  position  we  appeal  to  the  VVord  of  God.  and  if  we  fail  to  show 
that  the  doctrine  is  here  taught,  we  will  forever  abandon  it.     On  the  con- 


trary,  if  it  is  found  written  on  the  pages  of  God's  holy  hook,  we  can  never 
give  it  up  until  we  are  prepared  to  give  up  the  Bible,  and  sooner  than 
do  that  we  would  give  up  life. 

1st — We  appeal  first  to  a  number  of  scripture  passages  in  which  we 
believe  the  doctrine  is  clearly  taught.  '•  Be  not  thou  ashamed  of  the  tes- 
timony of  our  Lord,  nor  of  me  his  prisoner,  who  hath  saved  us  and  called 
us  with  an  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to 
his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  began.'' — 2d  Tim.,  ch.  i,  v.  8,  9.  "  For  whom  he  did  lore-know, 
he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  son.  Moreover, 
whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called  :  and  whom  he  called,  them 
be  also  justified  :  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified." — Rom. 
ch.  8,  v.  28,  30.  Still  more  :  ••  According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without 
blame  before  him  in  love  ;  having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of 
children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his 
will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  he  hath  made  us  accept- 
ed in  the  Beloved." — Eph.,ch.  i,  v.  4,  G.  Judge  from  these  proofs  whether 
christians  are  elected  in  time  or  from  eternity.  As  further  proof  that  "  God 
has  by  eternal  decree  chosen  some  men  to  eternal  life,"  attend  to  the  reading 
of  the  following  passages  in  the  word  of  God:  "  When  the  Gentiles  heard 
this,  they  were  glad,  and  glorified  the  word  of  the  Lord:  and  as  many  as  were 
ordained  to  eternal  life,  believed," — Acts  ch.  xiii,  v.  48.  "  Even  so  then  at 
this  present  time  also  there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace." 
— Romans  ch.  xi,  v.  5.  Again,  ("  For  the  children  being  not  yet  born, 
neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God,  according 
to  election  might  stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  him  that  calleth  ;)  it  was  said 
the  elder  should  serve  the  younger." — Rom.  ch.  ix,  v.  11,  12.  (See  also 
Mat.,  ch.  xxiv,  v.  22  ;  John,  ch.  xiii,  v.  18,  ch.  15,  v.  16  ;  Rom.,  ch.  viii, 
v.  28  ;  1st  Thes.,  ch.  i,  v.  4, ;  2d  Thes.,  ch.  ii,  v.  13  ;  1st  Peter,  ch.  i,  v.  2.) 
If  these  various  passages  of  Scripture  do  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  election, 
tell  me  what  they  mean  ?  Do  not  pass  over  them  hastily,  but  enquire  upon 
your  knees  for  the  meaning,  and  if  you  find  them  containing  this  doctrine 
then  receive  it  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

This  doctrine  is  clearly  taught  in  all  those  promises  of  the  enlargement 
of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  In  one  place  we  find  the  promise,  "  Ask  of 
me,  and  I  will  give  the  heathen  for  thine  inheritance  and  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession."  How  could  God  promise  to  give 
to  his  son  "  the  heathen,"  if  there  was  any  probability  that  the  promise 
would  not  be  realized  t  If  it  was  not  settled,  fore-ordained,  that  tht* 
Saviour  was  to  have  the  heathen  for  his  inheritance,  how  could  God  make 
a  promise  upon  an  uncertainty  ?  Is  it  not  God-dishonoring  to  say  that  he 
would  make  a  promise  that  might  never  be  fulfilled  ?  If  we  say  that  the 
promises  of  God  will  never  fail,  then  their  fulfilment  is  fixed.  If  God 
has  promised  to  save  a  portion  of  our  race,  (and  none  but  a  Universalist 
will  say  that  he  will  save  all  men,)  then  that  promise  will  be  fulfilled,  ami 
every  one  that  God  has  promised  to  save,  or  has  given  to  his  son  for  an  in- 
heritance, will  be  saved.  What  is  this,  if  not  the  choosing  of  some  men  to 
eternal  life  ? 

2d — This  doctrine  may  be  further  argued  from  the  unchangableness 
of  God.  In  Malachi  we  find  [ch.  iii,  v.  6,]  it  written  :  "  I  am  the  Lord, 
I  change  not."  God,  then,  is  an  unchangabie  being.  If  so,  he  has  neither 
purposes  nor  plans  now  that  he  did  not  have  from  eternity.  If  it  is  God's 
purpose  now  to   have   a  Day  of  Judgment,  then  it  was  his  purpose   from 


eternity.  If  it  is  now  God's  purpose  to  condemn  the  wicked  and  save  the 
righteous,  (if  God  is  unchangable,)  it  was  his  purpose  from  eternity.  It 
you  assert  that  God  now  purposes  to  save  one  being  whom  he  did  not 
purpose  to  save  from  eternity,  you  assert  that  he  has  new  purposes  ;  if 
new  purposes,  then  God  is  not  unchangable,  and  the  passage  quoted  from 
Malachi  is  false.  True,  we  are  taught  in  the  Bible  that  God  changes  his 
treatment  to  men,  but  thai  implies  no  change  in  the  character  of  God,  for 
every  change  of  treatment  to  man,  whatever  that  change  may  be,  is  only 
in  accordance  with  God's  eternal  unchangable  purpose.  God  has  no  new 
purposes,  if  unchangable.  He  purposes  now  to  save  none  that  he  did  not 
purpose  to  save  from  eternity  ;  hence  our  venerable  Confession  of  Faith 
says,  speaking  of  the  elect,  that  *'■  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite 
that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished.  Deny  this  position,  and 
to  what  awful  consequences  will  this  denial  lead  !  If  it  is  said  that  God 
changes,  for  example,  his  purposes  respecting  the  salvation  of  men,  so 
that  as  they  change  from  a  state  of  sin  to  one  of  holiness,  or  from  holiness 
to  sin,  he  also  changes  his  purpose  respecting  them  just  in  accordance 
with  their  changes,  does  not  that  make  the  will  of  God  subservient  to  the 
will  of  man  1  Here  is  a  man  that  God  purposes  to-day  to  destroy,  but 
to-morrow  he  repents,  and  then  Godr  purposes  to  save  him  ;  the  next  day, 
according  to  the  views  of  some  Armenians,  he  may  fall  from  grace  so  far 
that  God  will  blot  his  name  out  of  the  Book  of  Life,  and  on  the  day  fol- 
lowing he  may  repent  again,  and  again  God  changes  his  purpose  and 
writes  his  name  again  in  the  Book  of  Life.  Does  not  this  make  the  will 
of  God  dependant  on  the  will  of  man,  and  take  from  him  that  high  and 
glorious  character  everywhere  ascribed  to  him  in  his  word  and  works  1 
According  to  this^.  instead  of  God  moving  according  to  his  own  will  or 
purpose,  he  moves  according  to  the  will  of  capricious  man.  Talk  and 
vociferate  about  the  "  horrible  doctrine  of  election,"  as  is  the  custom  of 
some,  what  can  be  more  horrible  than  making  the  will  and  actions  of  the 
great  and  glorious  God  subservient  to  the  will  of  capricious,  fallen  and 
degraded  man  1  Does  it  not  drag  God  from  the  throne  of  the  universe 
and  seek  to  exalt  man  in  his  place  ?  Admit  that  God  is  unchangable,  and 
you  admit  the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend.  Such  is  some,  probably 
not  a  tythe  of  the  proof,  that  might  be  given  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of 
election. 

This  doctrine  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  for  there  are 
other  denominations  that  teach  the  doctrine  of  election  in  their  standards. 
Some  of  the  ablest  advocates  of  this  doctrine  have  been  found  among  our 
Episcopal  brethren,  It  is  contained  in  the  seventeenth  number  of  the 
"  Articles  of  their  Religion,"  which  reads  thus  :  "  Predestination  to  life  is 
the  everlasting  purpose  of  God,  whereby  (before  the  foundations  of  the 
world  were  laid)  he  hath  constantly  decreed  by  his  counsel,  secret  to  us, 
to  deliver  from  curse  and  damnation,  those  whom  he  hath  chosen  in  Christ 
out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring  them  by  Christ  to  everlasting  salvation,  as 
vessels  made  to  honor,"  etc.,  etc. 

The  doctrine  is  clearly  taught,  in  my  opinion,  in  the  Confession  of  our 
Cumberland  brethren.  Indeed,  it  is  no  easy  matter  to  copy,  as  they  have 
done,  a  great  portion  of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  without  copying  at  least 
some  Presbyterianism  ;  for  the  entire  system  of  doctrinal  truths  in  our 
book  form  a  perfect  chain,  every  single  link  of  which  is  essential  to  every 
other  link.  The  doctrine  of  election  is  contained  in  the  answer  to  the 
seventh  question  of  the  Cumberland  Catechism.  If  what  is  stated  in  that 
answer  is  true,  that  '*  God  has  fcre-orpainjld  to   bhiKg  to   tass  what 


otl 


8 

shall  be  roil  ins  own  glory,"  then  the  conclusion  cannot  be  avoided  that 
God  has  fore-ordained  the  salvation  of  all  that  will  finally  bo  saved.  Is 
not  the  salvation  of  sinners  for  the  glory  ok  God  !  then  "  God  has  fore- 
ordained to  bring  it  to  pass,"  according  to  the  answer  to  the  seventh  ques- 
tion of  the  Cumberland  Catechism,  fs  not  this  election  ?  Again — the 
doctrine  is  contained  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  their  Confession  of  Faith, 
sec.  1,  which  is  as  follows  :  "  It  has  pleased  God  to  choose  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  his  only  begotten  son,  who  verily  was  fore-ordained  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  to  be  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man. 
etc.,  unto  whom  he  promised  a  seed,  and  to  be  by  him  in  time  redeemed," 
etc.,  etc.  According  to  this  article,  the  il  Lord  Jesus  was  chosen  and  fore- 
ordained before  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  before  man  was  in  existence, 
and  unto  him  he  gave  a  seed  to  be  by  him  in  time  redeemed.  Whom  did 
God  give  to  his  son  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  to  be  redeemed  in 
time  '(  Answer,  A  seed  !  !  Who  was  that  seed  that  was  to  be  redeemed 
in  time  ?  Not  every  one — for  that  would  prove  Universalism.  Who,  then, 
was  that  seed  ?  Evidently  christians,  and  they  were  given  to  Christ,  ac- 
cording to  our  Cumberland  brethren's  own  statement,  thousands  of  years 
before  they  were  born,  or  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  If  this  is 
not  the  doctrine  of  election,  it  would  be  difficult  to  state  it  without  using  the 
"  unpopular  word  elect."  It  may  sound  somewhat  strange  to  state,  that, 
as  much  as  this  doctrine  and  its  advocates  have  been  abused  by  some  of 
our  Methodist  brethren,  the  great  founder  of  Methodism  himself  taught  the 
doctrine  of  election,  whether  intentional  or  not  or  whether  consistently  with 
statements  made,  in  his  sermon  "  on  free  grace,"  I  cannot  say  :  in  which 
he  says  of  Calvinism  "  that  it  represents  the  most  holy  God  as  worse  than 
the  devil."  The  truth  is,  it  is  difficult  to  reject  Calv/nism  in  practice. 
The  doctrine  of  election  is  taught,  in  my  opinion — whether  intentional 
or  not  1  cannot  say — in  the  ver>  book  of  discipline,  that  is  carried  at  least 
in  the  pocket,  if  not  always  in  the  head,  of  every  Methodist  circuit  rider. 
But  you  ask  for  the  proof  of  these  assertions — that  is  right.  Take  no 
man's  assertion  for  argument  or  for  authority.  Here  is  the  proof.  Rev. 
John  Wesley,  in  the  third  volume  of  his  works,  page  289,  says  :  "  With 
regard  to  unconditional  election,  I  believe  that  God  has  unconditionally 
elected  some  persons  to  many  peculiar  advantages,  both  with  regard  to 
temporal  and  spiritual  things  ;  and  I  do  not  deny,  (though  I  cannot 
prove  it  so,)  that  he  has  unconditionally  elected  some  persons  to  eternal 
glory."  Here  it  is  expressly  stated  that  God  elects  some  persons  to  pe- 
culiar advantages,  temporal  and  spiritual.  The  spiritual  advantages  to 
which  men  are  unconditionally  elected,  are  the  means  of  their  salvation  : 
then  they  who  are  thus  elected  unconditionally  to  spiritual  advantages, 
are  elected  to  salvation.  If  God  unconditionally  gives  to  me  advantages, 
that  he  withholds  from  others,  and  the  advantages  thus  given  arc  the 
means  of  my  salvation,  is  not  this  distinguishing  grace  ?  and  if  so,  then 
here  is  the  good  old  doctrine  of  election.  Wesley,  seeing  that  if  he  ad- 
mitted that  some  were  elected  to  peculiar  spiritual  advantages,  it  would  be 
folly  to  deny  that  some  were  elected  unconditionally  to  eternal  glory,  there- 
fore adds  :  "  I  do  not  deny,  though  I  cannot  prove  it  so,  that  he  (God) 
has  unconditionally  elected  some  to  eternal  glory."  In  the  book  of  Dis- 
cipline of  our  Methodist  brethren,  under  the  head  of  **  the  ministration  of 
Baptism  to  infants,"  the  Minister  is  directed  to  offer  the  following  prayer, 
viz  :  "  Grant  that  this  child  now  to  be  baptized  may  receive  the  fullness 
of  thy  graces,  and  ever  remain  in  the  number  of  thy  faithful  and  elect 
children."     Is  it   not   here   clearly  taught  that  God  has  elect  children  I 


9 

If  not;  why  speak  of  the  number  of  elect,  if  there  is  no  such  number  or 
class  of  beings  ?  The  doctrine  of  electing  or  distinguishing  grace  is 
taught  by  fair  implication  in  the  eighth  article  of  the  book  of  Discipline, 
just  referred  to,  in  which  "  the  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam  " 
is  represented  as  such,  "  that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by  his 
own  natural  strength  and  works,  to  faith  and  calling  upon  God,"  and  that 
he  has  no  power  to  do  good  works  without  the  grace  of  God.  Now,  then, 
if  man's  condition  is  such  since  the  fall,  that  he  cannot  make  himself  a 
christian,  but  is  entirely  dependent  upon  the  grace  of  God,  how  can  you 
account  for  the  fact  that  some  have  such  a  sufficiency  of  grace  as  to  make 
them  christians,  while  many  others  are  left  in  their  sins  to  perish  ?  If  all 
have  an  equal  amount  of  grace,  then  all  will  be  christians  ;  if  all  do  not 
have  an  equal  amount,  then  here  is  a  distinguishing  grace,  by  which  all 
who  have  it  are  saved,  and  what  is  this  but  electing  grace  1  We  make 
these  statements  not  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  now  under  consid- 
eration, but  to  show  that  the  abuse  heaped  upon  Presbyterians,  by  some, 
on  account  of  this  doctrine,  comes  with  ill  grace  from  those  whose  stand- 
ards contain  the  same  doctrine,  not  in  word,  but  in  spirit ;  and  if  they 
will  preach  according  to  their  books,  to  which  they  profess  to  subscribe, 
we  will  not  find  fault  with  them.  / 

REPROBATION. 

III.  In  the  third  place,  we  are  to  consider  the  Decree  of  Reprobation, 
or  the  remaining  part  of  the  answer  to  the  thirteenth  question  of  our  Larger 
Catechism,  which  is  as  follows  :  "  God  hath  passed  by  the  rest,  (the  non- 
elect)  to  dishonor  and  wrath,  to  be  for  their  sin  inflicted  to  the  praise  of 
the  glory  of  his  justice."  This  part  of  the  answer  needs  no  proof,  if  what 
has  already  been  said  is  true.  But  as  this  doctrine  has  been  greatly  mis- 
represented and  caricatured,  it  may  be  well  not  to  dismiss  the  subject 
too  hastily. 

I  will  first  state  our  views  negatively  and  then  positively. 

1st. — Negatively — We  do  not  believe,  as  some  anti-Presbyterians  affirm 
we  do,  that  God  has  created  many  of  our  race,  say  nine  out  of  ten,  for  the 
express  purpose  of  destroying  them  eternally  in  hell,  without  any  respect 
to  works  or  sin  in  the  creature.  We  teach  no  such  doctrine.  It  cannot 
be  found  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  nor  in  the  writings  of  any  Presby- 
terian, from  the  writings  of  that  great  predestinarian,  the  Apostle  Paul, 
down  to  Calvin,  and  from  Calvin  down  to  the  writers  of  the  present  day. 

We  give  not  bare  assertions,  after  the  manner  of  some  of  our  opponents, 
for  arguments  or  authority.  To  show  that  Presbyterians  do  not  teach  that 
God  has  determined  to  destroy  many  or  any  of  our  race,  without  any 
respect  to  sin,  you  are  reminded  of  what  is  said  in  the  answer  to  the  13th 
question  of  our  Larger  Catechism,  where  it  speaks  of  those  whom  God 
'•  hath  passed  b\,  and  fore-ordained  to  dishonor  and  wrath,  to  be  for  their 
sin  inflicted."  Here  it  is  taught  that  God  determined  to  punish  some 
men,  not  without,  but  for  sin.  The  Synod  of  Dort,  which  met  in  the  year  -  '. 
1618,  and  then  represented  the  Calv/nistic  world,  in  the  1st  chapter  of  the  (t) 
Acts  of  the  Synod  and  15th  section,  speaking  of  the  decree  of  repro- 
bation, says  :  "  This  is  the  decree  of  reprobation  which  determines  that 
God  is  in  no  wise  the  author  of  sin,  (which  to  be  thought  of  is  blas- 
phemy)." To  these  we  might  add  other  authorities,  but  let  these  suffice 
tor  the  present.  There  are  some  who  seem  so  determined  to  fix  upon 
Presbyterians  the  atrocious  doctrine  that  God  has  i!  determined  lo  damn  a 
2 


10 

portion  of  our  race  without  respect  to  works  or  sin,"  that  they  are  unwill- 
ing to  take  our  standards  as  a  full  and  fair  exposition  of  our  faith  ;  and  to 
fasten  this  odium  upon  us,  they  seek  to  fasten  upon  us  the  writings  and 
opinions  of  Calvin.  Why  sirs,  why  make  us  responsible  for  the  writings 
and  opinions  of  Calvin  ?  The  Presbyterian  Church  did  not  originate  with 
Calvin  as  the  Methodist  Church  did  with  Mr.  Wesley.  Our  Church  can 
be  traced  back  to  an  earlier  date.  It  originated,  as  we  believe,  with  Christ 
and  his  Apostles.  At  the  same  time  wo  venerate  the  name  of  Calvin, 
because  he  was  a  great  and  good  man,  an  able  defender  and  expounder 
of  the  Word  of  God,  a  hero  in  the  great  Reformation,  who  stood  as  firmly 
in  opposition  to  the  powers  of  darkness  and  "  the  man  of  sin  "  as  the 
everlasting  Alps  with  which  he  was  surrounded.  But  it  is  said  your  Pres- 
byterian Board  of  Publication  has  published  his  Institutes.  Read  the  pre- 
face of  the  Board,  and  you  will  find  that  they  do  not  subscribe  to  every 
thing  stated  in  his  work.  So  that  if  it  is  proved  that  Calvin  taught  that 
God  destroys  many  of  our  race,  regardless  of  sin,  you  cannot  make  the 
Presbyterian  Church  responsible  for  that.  The  truth  is  Calvin  never 
taught  the  doctrine  for  which  our  very  charitable  opponents  would  hold  us 
responsible,  if  we  are  to  take  his  word  in  preference  to  theirs,  as  recorded 
in  his  work  on  "  Secret  Providence,"  pages  17,  18,  27,  where  he  expressly 
denies  that  God  predestinates  any  to  destruction  regardless  of  sin.  Thus 
it  appears  that  the  charge  so  often  made  against  Presbyterians,  which  too 
has  created  so  much  prejudice  against  them,  so  far  from  proving  that  they 
teach  that  God  has  created  a  large  portion  of  our  race,  expressly  for  the 
purpose  of  damning  them,  with  or  without  sin,  comes  much  nearer  prov- 
ing that  "  there  is  something  rotten  in  Denmark,"  or  that  they  who  make 
the  charge  have  none  to  spare  of  that  charity  that  "  thinketh  no  evil."  1 
have  now  stated  negatively  what  is  meant  by  the  decree  of  Reprobation  ; 
Ave  do  not  mean  that  God  has  decreed  to  destroy  any  human  being  with- 
out regard  to  sin. 

2d — I  will  now  state  positively  what  we  mean  when  we  say,  "  that  God 
has  passed  by  and  fore-ordained  many  to  wrath  to  be  for  their  sins 
inflicted,"  etc. 

Our  standards  carefully  distinguish  between  the  efficient  and  permis- 
sive decree  ol  God.  While  God  unconditionally,  as  to  human  merit,  elected 
some  of  our  race  to  eternal  life,  he  permitted  others  to  go  on  in  sin,  and  de- 
termined to  punish  them  for  their  sin.  In  other  words,  while  God  did  not 
originate  sin,  he  permitted  its  existence — while  he  did  not  cause  any  of  our 
race  to  sin,  he  has  permitted  many  to  sin,  and  justly  has  determined  to  pun- 
ish them  for  sins  committed  of  their  own  free  choice.  This  conclusion  cannot 
be  avoided,  that  God  purposed,  decreed  or  willed  to  permit  the  existence  of 
sin.  Deny  this,  and  you  drive  me  to  Atheism.  No  man  can  deny  this,  without 
denying  the  existence  of  a  God,  such  a  being  as  the  God  of  the  Bible  is  rep- 
resented to  be.  He  is  there  represented  as  a  sovereign.  "  He  doth  all 
things  according  to  his  will  in  the  armies  of  heaven,  and  among  the  in- 
habitants of  earth,  and  none  can  stay  his  hand,  or  say  unto  him  what 
»  ^doest  thou." — Dan.  ch.  iv.  v.  35.  "  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive 
^  glory  and  honor  and  power,  for  thoulhast  created  all  things,  and  for  thy 
pleasure  they  are  and  were  created.' — Rev.  ch.  iv.  v.  11.  Here  God's 
sovereignty  is  taught.  Deny,  then,  that  God  either  created  or  permitted 
everything  that  exists  to  be  created,  and  you  deny  his  sovereignty.  Deny, 
for  example,  that  God  permitted  the  existence  of  Satan,  and  you  certainly 
deny  his  sovereignty.     If  Satan  did  not  exist  by  the  permission  of  God, 

irj  ho  existed  without  it ;  or,  in  other  words,  came  into  existence  con- 


II 

trary  to  Godrs  will,  and  if  he  existed  contrary  to  the  will  of  God,  then 
Satan  had  power  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  God  ;  for  according  to  this  he 
came  into  existence  contrary  to  God's  will,  who  would  have  prevented  his 
existence  if  he  could  have  done  so.  Does  not  this  make  Satan  equal,  if 
not  superior  to  God  1  Again,  God  must  have  been  prior  to  all  other  ex- 
istence ;  in  other  words,  there  was  a  period  when  no  other  being  existed 
but  the  First  Great  Cause  of  all  beings.  Then  no  being  could  possibly 
have  existed  without  the  will  or  permission  of  God.  For  example — there 
was  a  period  when  angels  did  not  exist ;  could  they  ever  have  had  an  exist- 
ence without  the  permission  of  God  ?  If  so,  then  they  were  independent 
of  God,  and  he  is  not  the  sovereign  of  heaven  and  earth.  There  was  a 
period  when  man  did  not  exist;  could  he  ever  have  existed  without  the 
will  of  God  ?  There  was  a  period  when  he  was  sinless,  and  a  time  when 
Satan  entered  the  garden  of  Eden,  and  thus  introduced  sin  and  all  our 
wretchedness.  But  did  not  God  purpose  to  permit  that  event  ?  If  yoa 
say  he  did  not,  you  then  say  that  he  had  not  power  to  prevent  it.  If  God 
permitted  the  event,  then  he  permitted  the  introduction  of  sin  into  our 
world  ;  and  because  men  became  sinful  wilfully,  and  God  punishes  them 
for  their  sins,  does  that  prove  that  God  created  them  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying  them  ?  Bearing  in  mind  the  distinction  between  the  efficient  and 
permissive  decree  of  God,  you  will  not  look  upon  the  decree  of  reproba- 
tion as  that  horrible  doctrine  that  it  is  sometimes  represented  to  be.  God, 
fore-seeing  from  all  eternity  that  a  portion  of  our  race  would  never  repent, 
but  would  of  their  own  free  choice  live  in  sin,  he  from  eternity  determined 
to  permit  them  to  pursue  their  own  course,  and  thus  work  out  their  own 
destruction.     This  is  the  decree  of  reprobation. 

After  all  that  has  been  said,  Presbyterians  are  not  so  very  much  more 
hetrodox  than  some  ether  denominations  on  this  subject.  In  some  of  their 
published  doctrines,  we  find  them  teaching  just  what  we  teach,  that  God 
permitted  the  existence  of  sin,  and  fore-seeing  sinners  from  eternity,  he 
determined  to  punish  them  for  sin. 

Our  Cumberland  brethren  in  the  answer  to  the  seventh  question  of  their 
Catechism,  tell  us  that  God  "  hath  fore-ordained  to  bring  to  pass  what 
shall  be  for  his  own  glory."  Let  us  ask,  what  is  for  the  glory  of  God  t 
For  an  answer  to  this  question  turn  to  their  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  xxxiii, 
sec.  2,  where  we  are  taught  that  God  hath  appointed  a  Day  of  Judgment 
"  for  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  his  mercy,"  in  the  salvation  of 
believers,  and  for  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  his  justice,  in  the  dam- 
nation of  reprobates.  Then,  if  God  has  appointed  a  Day  of  Judgment  for 
the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  his  justice  in  the  destruction  of  the  wicked, 
that  was  fore-ordained,  according  to  the  answer  to  the  seventh  question  of 
the  Catechism  already  quoted  from.  Hera,  then,  is  the  doctrine  of  repro- 
bation. (See  also  Cumberland  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  v,  sec.  4.)  We 
must  not  leave  our  Cumberland  brethren  without  company.  In  a  volume 
of  doctrinal  tracts  published  by  authority  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Church,  and  on  page  139,  we  find  this  language  :  "  God  pre- 
destinates or  fore-appoints  all  disobedint  unbelievers  to  damnation,  not 
without,  but  according  to  his  fore-knowledge  of  all  their  works  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world."  On  page  140  it  is  said  :  "  God  refused  or  rep- 
robated all  disobedient  unbelievers  as  such  to  damnation."  Here,  then, 
is  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  in  terms  quite  as  strong  as  any  in  our  own 
book,  and,  indeed,  a  little  stronger — for  while  we  here  find  the  very  word 
reprobate,  it  cannot  be  found  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  or  in  the  Larger 


12 

or  Shorter  Catechism.  You  may  find  the  word  reprobate  in  a  number  of 
scripture  quotations  in  the  margin  of  our  Confession,  and  once  in  the  index, 
but  nowhere  else.  In  charity  we  say  to  our  brethren  of  other  denomina- 
tions, who  find  fault  with  us  for  our  doctrines,  master  first  the  difficulties  of 
your  own  system,  and  then  assist  your  neighbors. 

In  further  pursuing  this  subject,  we  prefer  giving  our  views  not  in  the 
words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  in  the  words  of  God.  If  we  find  the  doctrine  in 
the  Bible  we  dare  not  reject  it,  whether  it  is  consonant  with  our  views  of 
God's  character  or  not ;  just  as  we  receive  ten  thousand  inexplicable 
truths  in  the  natural  world.  Paul,  in  his  second  letter  to  the  Thess..  (ch. 
ii,  v.  11,  12,)  says  :  "  For  this  cause  God  shall  send  them  strong  delusion 
that  they  should  believe  a  lie ;  That  they  all  might  be  damned  who  believe 
not  the  truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness."  Jude,  v.  4,  "  For 
there  are  certain  men  crept  in  unawares,  who  were  before  of  old  ordained 
to  this  condemnation."  In  the  first  chapter  of  Romans,  v.  28,  speaking 
of  the  Gentiles,  Paul  says  :  "  God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind." 
*'  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself:  yea,  even  the  wicked  for  the 
day  of  evil." — Prov.  ch  xvi,  v.  4.  "  For  the  scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh, 
Even  for  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up,  that  I  might  shew  my 
power  in  thee,  and  that  my  name  might  be  declared  throughout  the  earth. 
What,  it  God,  willing  to  shew  his  wrath,  and  to  make  his  power  known, 
endured  with  much  long-suffering  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction," 
etc. — Rom.,  ch.  ix,  v.  17,  22.  "  Know  ye  not  your  own  selves,  how  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye  be  reprobates."  "  But  I  trust  that  ye 
shall  know  that  we  are  not  reprobates." — 2d  Cor.,  ch.  xiii,  v.  5,  6.  (See 
also  2d  Peter,  ch.  ii,  v.  12,  Mark,  ch.  iv,  v.  11.)  If  these  passages,  to 
which  many  others  might  be  added,  do  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  Repro- 
bation, then  we  would  be  thankful  to  any  one  for  an  explanation  of  them. 
Please  tell  us  what  they  mean.  When  Job's  children  and  servants  were 
destroyed,  and  his  property  was  carried  away  by  the  Sabeans  and 
Chaldeans,  Job  recognised  the  hand  of  God  in  this  affair,  for  he  said :  "  the 
Lord  gave  and  the  Lord  hath  taken  away."  After  the  Saviour  was  put  to 
death  it  was  declared  by  the  Apostles,  (the  record  is  in  Acts,  ch.  iv,  v.  27, 
28,)  that  "  both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles  and  people  of 
Israel,  were  gathered  together  to  do  whatsoever  God's  hand  and  his 
counsel  determined  before  to  be  done."  Here,  then,  the  doctrine  for 
which  we  contend,  is  so  plainly  taught,  that  even  comment  is  useless.  Let 
those  who  abuse  and  misrepresent  these  teachings,  remember  that  they  are 
but  abusing  God  ;  and  we  rejoice  to  know  that  to  him  they  are  responsible. 
We  have  thus  explained  what  is  meant  by  the  Decrees  of  God.  We 
believe  that  "  God  has  fore-ordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass — that  he 
has  fore-ordained  or  purposed  to  save  a  portion  of  the  human  race,  and 
that  he  has  purposed  to  permit  another  portion  to  live  just  as  they  wish, 
in  sin,  for  which  they  are  to  be  forever  destroyed.  Judge  whether  these 
things  are  so.  IT  so,  God  knows  our  future  history — he  knows  the  cir- 
cumstances of  our  death,  and  he  knows  whether  we  will  be  prepared  for 
heaven  or  hell.  But  how  can  God  know  these  things  with  unerring  cer- 
tainty, if  they  are  not  to  be  as  he  knows  they  will  be.  Of  course  these 
things  are  hid  from  us  ;  we  know  not  our  future  history.  This  only  we  do 
know,  and  it  is  enough  for  us  :  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  ever- 
lasting life  :  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life  ;  but  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him." 


13 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

IV.  Before  closing  this  subject,  we  are  to  notice  some  of  the  objections 
that  are  frequently  urged  against  this  doctrine,  or  rather  against  the  word 
of  God.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  and  I  call  especial  attention  to  it,  that 
the  objections  sometimes  urged  against  the  Decrees  of  God,  as  taught  by 
Presbyterians,  are  the  very  same  that  the  Apostle  Paul  anticipated  would 
be  made  against  the  doctrine  as  taught  by  himself  in  the  ninth  chapter  of 
Romans,  where  the  doctrine  is  clearly  stated,  proved,  and  illustrated.  He 
represents  the  objector  as  saying,  "  Is  there  unrfghteousness  with  God  ?" 
Just  as  some  men  now  object,  and  say,  well,  if  your  doctrine  is  true,  the 
very  doctrine  that  the  Apostle  here  teaches,  then  God  is  "  unrighteous  and 
more  cruel  than  Satan."  The  Apostle  further  represents  the  objector  as 
saying,  if  this  doctrine  is  true,  then  it  destroys  the  responsibility  of  man 
and  of  course  his  free  agency.  "  Thou  wilt  say  then  unto  me,  why  doth 
he  yet  find  fault,  for  who  hath  resisted  his  will."  To  these  and  other 
objections  commonly  urged  against  this  doctrine,  for  an  answer,  we  might 
content  ourselves,  by  giving  the  same  withering  rebuke  to  those  who  urge 
them,  that  the  Apostle  did  to  those  he  anticipated  as  thus  objecting  :  "Nay, 
but  O  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God?  shall  the  thing  formed 
say  to  him  that  formed  it,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?"  But  as  our 
Armenian  brethren  urge  objections  against  the  Decrees  of  God,  I  deem  it 
my  duty  to  meet  them,  and  I  believe  that  many  of  the  very  objections  that 
they  urge  against  our  doctrines  lie  with  equal  weight  against  their  own. 

First — Your  attention  will  be  directed  to  one  of  the  objections  anticipa- 
ted by  the  Apostle,  viz  :  If  the  doctrine  of  decrees  is  true,  then  God  is  an 
unjust  being.  To  deal  unjustly  with  any  man  is  to  treat  him  worse  than 
he  deserves.  If  God  treats  any  of  his  creatures  worse  than  they  deserve, 
he  deals  unjustly  with  them  ;  otherwise  he  does  not.  Are  the  elect  treated 
worse  than  they  deserve  1  Surely  not.  They  are  treated  just  the  reverse — 
infinitely  better  than  they  deserve.  Then  they  cannot  accuse  God  of 
injustice.  The  non-elect  have  no  reason  to  complain  ;  for  God  only 
punishes  them  according  to  their  sins.  None  ha\e  reason  to  complain 
that  they  are  treated  unjustly,  because  God  passes  them  by,  and  leaves 
them  free  to  sin,  and  then  punishes  them  for  sins  wilfully  committed. 
If  fifty  of  our  citizens  should  violate  the  laws  of  our  land  by  commit- 
ting the  highest  crimes  known  in  law,  would  there  be  any  injustice  in 
punishing  them  for  the  crimes  they  wilfully  committed.  Certainly  none. 
So  God  might  have  passed  by  our  entire  race,  when  we  had  sinned  and 
wilfully  transgressed  his  holy  law,  and  there  could  have  been  no  reason- 
able complaint.  Surely  no  man  will  say  that  God  was  under  obligations 
to  give  bis  Son  for  our  redemption.  Then  Christ  might  have  remained 
forever  in  the  bosom  of  his  Father,  and  still  God  would  have  been  just. 
In  tha/  event,  not  one  of  our  race  could  have  been  saved  ;  so  that  God 
would  have  been  just,  even  if  he  had  not  saved  one  of  the  human  family. 
But,  say  some  of  our  opposers,  unless  God  saves  all  he  ought  not  to  save 
any,  when  all  are  equally  guilty.  So  proud  man  may  say,  and  even  dic- 
tau  to  God  and  tell  him  what  he  ought  to  do.  "  Nay,  but  O  man  who  art 
thou  that  repliest  against  God."  If  this  objection  is  worth  anything,  it  lies 
with  equal  weight  against  the  Armenian  system.  We  teach  that  God  pur- 
posed to  do  from  eternity  just  what  they  say  he  in  fact  does.  They  tell 
is,  and  not  unfrequently  in  the  most  harsh  and  boisterous  terms,  that 
'many  will   be  forever  lost  in  hell,  while  many  will  be  saved.     Why  this 


14 

difference  ?  Why  are  many  lost  1  0,  say  our  opponents,  because  some 
will  not  repent.  Just  what  we  teach  ;  God  foreseeing  that  many  would  not 
repent,  determined  to  punish  them  for  their  sins.  Why  then  charge  Pres- 
byterians with  making  God  unjust,  when  we  teach  that  God  has  deter- 
mined to  do  the  very  thing  that  our  very  charitable  opponents  say  that  he 
in  fact  does  do. 

Second — It  is  objected,  that  if  God  fore-ordains  whatsoever  come  to 
pass  he  is  the  author  of  sin.  Some  may  say  and  think  so,  but  Presby- 
terians neither  say  nor  think  so.  We  do  not  understand  the  term  ordain 
or  fore-ordain  to  mean  fatality  or  physical  necessity.  When  it  is  said  that 
Christ  "  was  verily  fore-ordained  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  we 
do  not  mean  that  he  was  under  the  physical  necessity  of  dying  or  wa3 
compelled  by  fate  to  die.  But  this  is  our  meaning  when  we  speak  of  fore- 
ordaining an  event.  "It  is  to  form  such  a  purpose  respecting  it,  as  ren- 
ders certain  its  future  existence,  through  positive  or  permissive  agency." 
Now,  does  it  follow  that  because  God  fore-ordained  or  purposed  to  save  a 
portion  of  our  race,  and  fore-ordained  to  permit  another  portion  to  go  on 
in  sin,  or  to  leave  them  to  themselves  to  pursue  their  own  course,  that  he 
is  the  author  of  their  sins  ?  Take  an  illustration  :  Suppose  you  knew 
that  by  preaching  the  Gospel  to  five  men,  one  of  them  would  repent  and 
turn  from  sin,  but  you  also  knew  that  the  repentance  of  that  one  would  so 
enrage  the  others  that  they  would  curse  the  very  God  of  their  existence, 
and  cruelly  persecute  the  man  that  repented.  Knowing  these  things  with 
certainty,  you  determined  to  preach  to  the  five  men,  and  thus  save  one 
instrumentally  ;  do  you  not  at  the  same  time  decree,  in  one  sense,  the 
cuksing  and  persecution  of  the  others  ?  and  yet  you  are  in  no  sense  the 
author  of  their  wickedness.  Because  God  enlightens  some,  and  others 
are  hardened  by  the  use  of  the  same  means  and  God  punishes  them  for 
the  neglect  and  abuse  of  the  means  of  grace,  does  that  make  God  the 
author  of  sin  ?  There  certainly  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  sun's 
being  the  source  of  heat  and  light  and  being  the  cause  of  darkness. 
When  the  sun  sets  darkness  follows,  but  would  any  man  in  his  senses  say, 
that  the  sun,  which  is  the  fountain  of  light,  was  also  the  fountain  of  dark- 
ness ?  So  God  is  not  the  source  of  sin,  but  when  he  withdraws  his  pre- 
sence and  influence,  sin  invariably  follows  ;  but  that  no  more  makes  God 
the  author  of  sin,  than  the  setting  of  the  sun  makes  it  the  source  of 
darkness. 

But  it  is  sometimes  insinuated  that  this  distinction  between  the  efficient 
and  permissive  decrees  of  God  is  not  found  in  our  standards,  but  is  a 
modern  invention.  Read  at  your  leisure,  from  our  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  you  will  find  in  the  answer  to  the  19th  question  of  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, and  in  the  6th  ch.  of  the  Conf.,  sec.  1st,  the  distinction  made  be- 
tween efficient  and  permissive  decrees.  You  will  find  the  same  distinc- 
tion also  made  in  the  3d  ch.  of  the  Conf.,  sec.  1st,  and  ch.  5,  sec.  4  ; 
where  also  it  is  expressly  denied  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  The  same 
distinction  has  been  made  by  Presbyterians  in  all  ages.  Augustine,  more 
than  twelve  hundred  years  before  an  Armenian  Methodist  had  an  exist- 
ence, made  the  same  distinction  that  we  do  between  the  EFFICIENT  and 
PERMISSIVE  decree  of  God.  See  his  work  on  the  Trinity,  book  3,  ch  4. 
Calvin  made  the  same  distinction  ;  our  Scotch  brethren  in  their  explana- 
tory CatechisnV  published  about  a  century  ago,  made  the  same  distinction. 
Here  is  the  extract  : 

"  Quest.  2C.  How  does  the  decree  of  God  extend  to  things  naturally  and  morally 
good  ? 


15 

Am.  Effectively  :  because  Cod  is  the  author  and  efficient  cause  of  all  good.— 
Phil.  ch.  ii,  v.  13. 

Quest.  27.     How  does  it  extend  to  things  morally  evil  ? 
Ans.     Permissively  and  directively  only. — Acts,  ch.  xiv.,  v.  16. 
Quest.  31.     How  do  you  prove  that  God  cannot  be  the  author  of  sin? 
Ans.    From  the  contrariety  of  it  to  his  nature  and  law,"  etc. 

Does  this  look  like  making  God  the  author  of  sin,  or  like  a  modern  in- 
vention 1  But  Presbyterians  are  not  alone  in  making  this  distinction.  An 
eminent  Methodist,  Rev.  Richard  Watson,  says  :  "  It  is  obvious,  that  by 
nothing  can  we  fairly  avoid  this  consequence,"  (i.  e.  of  making  God  the 
author  of  sin,)  "  but  by  allowing  the  distinction  between  determinations 
to  do  on  the  part  of  God,  and  determinations  to  permit  certain  things  to 
be  done  by  others."  "  A  decree  to  permit  involves  no  such  consequen- 
ces," as  making  God  the  author  of  sin. — Theology  of  Watson,  vol.  2,  page 
424.  Now  hear  Mr.  Wesley's  testimony  on  this  subject.  In  his  sermon 
entitled  "  God's  love  to  fallen  man,"  relative  to  the  fall  of  Adam,  he  says  : 
"  Was  it  not  easy  for  the  Almighty  to  prevent  it?"  He  answers:  "  It 
was  undoubtedly  in  his  power  to  prevent  it ;  for  he  hath  all  power,  both  in 
heaven  and  earth.  But  it  was  known  to  him  at  the  same  time  that  it  was 
best,  on  the  whole,  not  to  prevent  it."  These  eminent  divines  most  sen- 
sibly admit  the  distinction  that  we  make  between  the  efficient  and  permiss 
sive  decree  of  God.  If,  however,  the  Calvfnistic  view  of  this  subject 
makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  the  Armenian  system  does  the  same  thing. 
Let  us  catechise  an  Armenian  brother  a  little.  Quest.  1.  Do  you  believe 
that  God  knew  when  he  placed  Adam  in  the  garden  of  Eden  that  he  would 
sin  1  Ans.  Yes,  God  knowing  all  things  past,  present  and  future,  knew 
that  he  would  fall.  Quest.  2.  Had  God  power  to  prevent  him  from  sinning  I 
Ans.  Yes,  for  God  is  all-powerful.  Quest.  3.  If  God  knew  that  our  first 
parents  would  sin  and  he  had  power  to  prevent  it,  but  did  not,  did  he  not. 
PERMIT  it?  Yes,  answers  Watson  and  Wesley.  ,  This  is  Calvanism, 
and  if  it  makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  then  the  Armenian  system  does 
just  the  same  thing. 

Third — It  is  objected,  that  if  this  doctrine  is  true,  the  Atonement  of  Christ 
is  not  sufficient  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Presbyterians  of  this 
and  of  all  ages,  so  far  as  we  have  their  history,  have  taught  that  the 
Atonement  of  Christ  was  sufficient  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  The 
reason  why  any  are  lost  is  because  "  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ  and 
therefore  cannot  be  saved."  (See  Confession  of  Faith.)  Calvin  says  the 
blood  of  Christ  is  sufficient  for  the  whole  world."  (See  Com.  on  John  2d 
chap.)  The  Synod  of  Dort  says  in  chap,  ii,  sec.  3,  of  their  proceedings  : 
,(  The  death  of  the  Son  of  God  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  expiate  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world."  We  do  not  teach  then  that  the  Atonement  is  insuf- 
ficient for  the  sins  of  the  world.  Is,  there  no  difference  then,  (do  you 
ask  ?)  between  Armenians  and  Calv/nists  on  this  point  ?  They  tell  us  that 
Christ  died  intentionally  to  save  all  men.  This  we  deny.  For  if  you  say 
that  Christ  intended  to  save  all  men,  you  must  take  one  of  these  two 
positions  :  1st — Either  that  all  men  will  be  saved,  or  2d — that  Christ  was 
defeated  in  his  intentions.  In  other  words,  you  are  compelled  to  be  either 
a  Universalist  or  a  Socinian.  If  you  say  that  Christ  was  defeated  in  his 
intentions,  you  rob  him  of  his  most  glorious  attributes,  and  make  him 
altogether  such  an  one  as  ourselves.  To  suppose  that  Christ  was  defeated 
in  his  intentions,  is  to  impeach  his  wisdom.  If  Christ  is  an  all-wise  being 
would  he  likely  undertake  what  he  could  not  accomplish  ?  Even  men  do 
not  act  with  such  folly  as  this — they  never  undertake  anything  when  they 


16 

know  they  will  fail  in  accomplishing  their  end.  To  say,  then,  that  Christ 
died  intending  to  save  all  men,  is  to  say  that  he  had  not  wisdom  enough 
to  know  that  he  would  be  defeated  in  his  intentions.  This  position,  also, 
takes  from  the  Saviour  fore-knowledge.  If  the  Saviour  knew  before  his  death 
that  many  for  whom  he  died  would  be  lost,  he  certainly  would  not  have 
died  for  them  ;  for  so  far  as  they  were  concerned  he  would  have  died  in 
vain.  More  than  this,  if  one  soul  that  he  intended  to  save,  should  finally 
be  lost,  in  this  case  the  Saviour  would  be  defeated  in  his  intentions ;  and 
if  defeated  in  one  instance,  he  might  be  defeated  in  other  instances,  yea, 
in  the  salvation  of  every  one,  so  that  not  one  for  whom  he  died  might  be 
saved.  To  say  that  Christ  was  defeated  in  his  intentions  respecting  the 
salvation  of  one  being,  is  to  say  that  he  may  be  defeated  in  every  instance, 
and  thus  God  may  have  given  his  Son  to  a  cruel  death  without  accomplish- 
ing any  good  end.  Again,  we  say  that  the  Atonement  of  Christ  is  sufficient 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  no  one  ever  will  be  lost  because  of  any 
insufficiency  in  the  Atonement.  Hence  Presbyterians  preach  from  such 
texts  as  these  :  '*  Ho  !  everyone  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  waters," 
etc.,  Christ "  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for  every  man,"  etc. 
But  this  is  a  very  different  position  from  saying  that  Christ  died  intending 

■*  to  save  all  men  ;  tor  then  he  either  was  defeated  in  his  intentions  or  else 
\  all  will  be  saved.  Whom,,  then,  does  Christ  intend  to  save  by  his  death  ? 
Presbyterians  and  the  Bible  Say  all  who  believe  in  him.  If  we  mistake 
not,  this  is  consonant  with  our  Cumberland  brethren,  who  say,  in  the  11th 
ch.  of  their  Confession,  section  4  :  "  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  determined  to  justify  all  true  believers,  and  Christ  did  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  die  for  their  sins,"  etc.  The  Book  of  Discipline  of  our 
Methodist  brethren  contains  an  article  on  this  subject.  If  handed  to  me 
to  read,  and  if  I  did  not  know  that  it  was  among  the  articles  of  their 
religion,  and  that  they  did  not  hold  to  such  a  doctrine,  I  would  unhesita- 
tingly pronounce  it  the  production  of  a  Universalist.  The  article  is  the 
twentieth,  a  part  of  which  reads  thus — "  the  offering  of  Christ  once  made, 
is  that  perfect  redemption,  propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,  both  original  and  actual."  According  to  this  article, 
Christ  has  made  a  perfect  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 
How,  then,  can  any  be  lost,  since  a  perfect  satisfaction  has  been  made  for 
all  sin  !  Our  Methodist  brethren  tell  us  that  the  reason  why  many  will  be 
lost,  is  because  they  will  not  repent  and  believe  on  Christ.  Is  the  want  of 
either  repentance  or  belief  a  sin  1  If  you  say  not,  then  God  will  condemn 
no  one  for  the  want  of  either,  for  he  does  not  condemn  without  sin.  If 
you  say  the  want  of  repentance  or  belief  is  a  sin,  then  according  to  the 
above  article  a  perfect  satisfaction   has  been  made  for  all  sin,  both  actual 

^   and  original.      Take   either   horn   of   the   dilemma,   and   the  result   is 

^  '    Universalism.     Why  urge   objections,  against   Presbyterianism,  brethren, 

since  objectious  quite  as  formidable  lieVgainst  your  own  system  :  "  First 

cast  out  the  beam  out   of  thine  own  eye  ;  and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly 

to  cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye." 

Fourth — It  is  objected,  that  if  this  doctrine  is  true,  there  is  no  use  of  using 
the  means  ordained  to  Salvation.  For,  say  our  opponents,  "  if  I  am  to  be 
saved  I  will  be  saved — if  I  am  to  be  lost  I  will  be  lost,  do  what  I  may."  If 
this  objection,  that  has  no  foundation  in  truth,  and,  to  say  the  most  of  it, 
is  puerile  in  the  extreme,  was  not  so  often  urged  against  Presbyterians,  I 
would  not  notice  it.  ,  The  reply  made  by  a  venerable  divine,  of  blessed 
memory,  to  an  Armenian,  who  asked  him  if  he  was  not  one  who  believed 
"  that  what  was  to  be  would  be,"  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  objection. 


17 

The   reply  was,  "  Do  you  believe  that  what  is  to  be  will  not  be  .?"     As  to 
the  use  of   means,   or   second  causes,   our  standards   clearly  teach  that 
God  has  ordained,  not  only  the  end,  but  the  means.     (See  Confession  of 
Faith,  chap,  iii,  sec.  1.)    We  teach  a  doctrine  very  similar  to  what  we  find 
in   the  Bible,  in  a  number  of  places.     At  one   place  we  are  told  that  God 
had  determined  to  destroy  the  earth  by  a  Mood,  but  that  he   determined  to 
save  one  man  and   his  family,  not  without,  but   by,  the  use  of  means    or 
second   causes ;    hence   the    determination  also  to   build   the  Ark.     God 
determined,  and  made  known  his  determination,  before-hand  to  save  Noah 
and  his  family,  and  that  too  by  the  Ark  as  a  weans,  or  second-cause.     So 
while  it  is  the  determination  of  God  to  save  his  people,  it  is  also  his  deter- 
mination   to  save   them   by  the  use  of  means.     "  What   God  has  joined 
together  let  no  man  put  asunder."     Our  views  on  this  subject  are  clearly 
expressed  in  the  27th  chap,  of  Acts,  where  we  are  taught  that  when  Paul 
was  on  a  voyage  to  Rome,  the  men  of  the  ship  on  which  he  had  embarked 
seemed  about  to  be  lost,  so  much  so,  that  it  is  said,  "  all  hope  that  we  should 
be  saved  was  taken  away."     But  it  was  otherwise  ordered   by  God,  and 
he  by  the   ministry   of  an  Angel,  informed  Paul   of  his   intentions    and 
assured  him  of  safety.     But  did  Paul  cease   to  use  the   means  of  safety, 
when  he  knew  before-hand  the  intention  of  God  to  save  himself  and  the 
ship's  crew  ?     No,  when  the  sailors,  who  alone  were  capable  of  managing 
the  ship,  were  about  to  <c  flee  out  of  the  ship  "  in  the  life  boat,  "  Paul  said 
unto  the  centurian  and   to  the  soldiers,  except  these  abide  in  the   ship  ye 
cannot  be  saved."     While  the  safety  of  Paul   and  the  ship's  crew  was 
decreed,  the   means   of  their   safety   was   also   decreed.     So  when  God 
decrees  to  save  sinners  he  also  deerees  the  means  of  salvation.     Arminians 
contend  that  the  Savior  has  made  a  perfect  "  satisfaction  for  all  sin,  actual 
and  original,"  if  so,  we  can  make  the  same  objection  against  their  doctrine, 
and  ask,  why  use  the  means  ?  what   necessity   for   them?  since  a  perfect 
•'  satisfaction  has  been  made  for  all  sin  actual  and  original  ?" 

Fifth — It  is  objected  to  this  doctrine,  that  it  destroys  the  free  agency 
of  man.  Presbyterians  do  not  so  understand  it.  We  believe  in  the 
decrees  of  God,  and  fully  in  the  free  agency  of  man.  We  teach  both 
doctrines,  hence  our  Confession  says,  that  "violence  is  not  offered  to  the 
will  of  the  creature."  (See  Con.  of  Faith,  ch.  iii,  sec.  1.)  These  doc- 
trines are  not  inconsistent  with  each  other.  God  makes  the  creature  that 
he  converts  willing,  in  the  day  of  his  power  ;  so  that  when  he  becomes  a 
christian  he  does  so  willingly — and  thus  his  will  acquiesces  in  the  will  of 
God.  Admit  that  we  cannot  reconcile  the  two  doctrines,  does  that  prove 
that  either  is  false  ?  Many  truths  are  received  that  cannot  be  reconciled, 
by  many  who  make  this  objection.  Christians  believe  that  there  are  three 
persons  in  the  God-head  ;  but  who  can  understand  this  mystery  or  recon- 
cile it  with  the  idea  of  but  one  God  ?  Shall  we  reject  this  doctrine  because 
we  cannot  fully  understand  it?  Why,  then,  reject  the  doctrine  of  decrees 
because  we  cannot  fully  understand  it,  when  it  is  written  on  almost  every 
page  of  God's  word  ?  Both  doctrines  are  taught  in  the  Bible.  In  ihe  2d 
chap,  of  Phil,  we  find  both  doctrines  thus  expressed  :  "  Work  out  your 
own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  for  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  you 
both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  Both  doctrines  are  taught 
in  the  history  of  Pharaoh,  King  of  Egypt.  He  was  free  in  refusing 
to  let  the  Children  of  Israel  go  out  of  his  land — he  was  equally  free  in  pur- 
suing them  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  in  attempting  to  cross  it — and  yet  every 
act  of  his  was  but  a  link  in  a  chain  of  events,  that  accomplished  the  decree 
or  purpose  of  God.  For  it  is  said  in  Ex.,  ch.  ix,  v.  16,  ch.  iv,  v.  21  :  "  Even 
for  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up,  that  I  might  shew  my  power 
o 


18 

La  thee.''     "  I  will  harden  his  heart,  that  he  shall  not  let  the  people  go.'" 
The  brothers  of  Joseph  were  free  agents  in  selling  him  to  the  company  ot 
Ismaelitish  merchants,  and  yet  they  were  accomplishing  the  purposes  of 
God,  for  Joseph  says  that  "  God  did  sendme,"  that  is,  to  Euypt. — Gen.,  ch. 
xlv,  v.  7.     He  also  said  to  his  brothers  :    "  But  as  for  you,  ye  thought  evil 
against  me  ;  but   God   meant  it  unto  good." — Genesis,  chapter  50,  verso 
2U.     The  destruction  of  Babylon  was  not  only  fore-ordained  but  foretold. 
Many  of  the  particulars  were  distinctly  foretold  that   it   was  to  be  taken 
by  an  army  of  Medes  and  Persians,  commanded  by  Cyrus.     Cyrus  was 
named  by  the  Prophet  more  than  a  century  before  his  birth.     According 
to  the  prediction,  when  the  time  of  Babylon's  destruction  was  near  at  hand, 
Cyrus,  with   his   army  ot  Medes  and  Persians,  was  standing  before  the 
brazen   gates   and   mighty  walls  of  Babylon  ;  and  when   the  cup  of  her 
iniquity  was  full,  Cyrus  and   his  army  entered  the  city  and  completely 
subdued  it.     Thus  Cyrus  did  freely  the  very  thing  that  God  had  long  before 
said  he  should  do.     He  did  it  probably  without  any  knowledge  of  the  fact 
that  he  was  accomplishing  the  purposes  of  God.    See  Isaiah,  13th  and  14th 
chapters,  also  44th  ch.,  v.  28,  and  45th  ch.  1st  4  v. ;  Jer.  ch.  51 ,  v.  29.  The 
crucifixion  of  our  Saviour  affords  a  striking  illustration  of  our   views  of 
this  doctrine.     All  who  were  concerned  in  the   trial   and   crucifixion  of 
Christ  acted  as  they  did  with  perfect  freedom.     Yet  it  is  expressly  stated 
that  they  did  "  what  the  hand  and  council  (of  God)  determined  before  to 
be  done." — Acts,  ch.  iv,  v.  27,  28.     We  also  read  in  the  2d  ch.  of  Acts, 
Christ  "  being  delivered  by  the  determinate  council   and  fore-knowledge 
of  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain." 
But  there  is  not  a  difficulty  that  presses  against  this  doctrine,  that  does 
not  lie  with  equal  force  against  the  Arminian  view.     How  can  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God  be  consistent    with   man's  freedom  1     Wesley  in  his 
Miscellaneous  Works,  vol.  3,  page  219,  answers  the  question  like  a  candid 
•christian,  and  says,   "  I  cannot  tell."     Must  we  then  reject  the  doctrine 
of  God's  foreknowledge,  because  we  are  not  able  to  reconcile  it  with  man's 
free  agency ?     O,  no!  say  our  Arminian  friends.     Why  then  reject  the 
doctrine  of  divine  decrees,  because  you   cannot  reconcile  it  with  man's 
free  agency  ?     Truly,  some  of  our  Arminian  brethren  remind  us  of  an 
ancient  people  that  shot  arrows  at  the  moon,  which  fell  back  upon  their 
heads  and  smote  them  to  death. 

Some  of  the  objections  that  are  frequently  urged  against  the  doctrine  of 
divine  decrees  have  thus  been  briefly  answered.  It  is  sometimes  said  that 
this  doctrine  is  unprofitable,  and  ought  never  to  be  preached  ;  but  my 
commission  does  not  so  read.  "  I  charge  thee  before  God  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appearing, 
preach  the  word  ;  exhort  with  all  long-suffering  and  doctrine  ;  for  the 
time  will  come  when  they  will  not  endure  sou.nd  doctrine.  All  scripture 
is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,"  etc. — 
Paul  to  Timothy.  Is  that  an  unprofitable  doctrine  that  leads  the  sinner  to 
feel  his  entire  dependence  upon  God  for  salvation  —  that  compels  him  to 
renounce  his  own  righteousness  and  seek  a  better  one  than  his  own,  even 
the  righteousness  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ? 

It  is  not  the  love  or  desire  of  controversy  that  has  induced  me  to  present 
this  subject ;  but  the  love  of  truth  and  a  sense  of  duty.  The  very  doc- 
trine that  1  have  thus  discussed,  was  called  from  a  pulpit  in  this  town  by 
way  of  ridicule,  u  a  doctrine  fit  for  devils  in  hell  to  sneer  at."  Is 
this  true  ?  Who  will  undertake  to  prove  the  truth  of  this  assertion  ?  "I 
speaj<  as  unto  wise  men  ;  judge  ye  what  I  say  !" 

the  end. 


* 


I 


'/' 


I 


. 


r 


2 


Mb 


